Preliminary injunction granted against Cardiffs & VPL Medical

P

Following a Temporary Restraining Order issued last month, a preliminary injunction has been granted against Jason Cardiff and his company VPL Medical.

VPL was hatched as a way for Cardiff to get around his Redwood Scientific Technologies injunction.

In granting the TRO last month, the court found

There is good cause to believe that Jason Cardiff is violating the Preliminary Injunction by failing to disclose his true role in VPL, and failing to account for assets he has received through that business.

The FTC is likely to succeed in showing that Jason Cardiff controls VPL and that VPL and its assets, including approximately $6 million paid or owed to it by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, are “Receivership Property” as defined in the Preliminary Injunction.

In granting a preliminary injunction on July 7th, the court found

The FTC has produced significant evidence that Cardiff “own[s] or control[s]” VPL.

Following the Receivership taking control of VPL as per the granted TRO, the Receiver published a report which included

minutes of VPL’s first board of directors meeting indicating that Cardiff and Bobby Bedi are VPL’s sole directors.

Bedi worked for Cardiff at Redwood Scientific Technologies.

The Report also includes Cardiff’s e-mail from his “(removed)@vplmedical.com” e-mail account describing VPL as “my biggest company to date” and indicating his desire to own “Super majority shares in the company” and the ability to call all of co-founder Bobby Bedi’s stock at any time at minimal cost.

The HHS “vendor profile” and the State of Nevada “electronic vendor registration” for VPL lists Cardiff as the CEO.

In a June 17, 2020 commercial lease application, (Cardiff) represented himself as the President of VPL, drawing an annual salary of $25,000 and bonus/additional income of $500,000.

Cardiff countered the mountain of evidence provided by the FTC and Receivership, with

several declarations to argue that Cardiff has been compensated solely as a consultant to Bedi and has never held himself out to be CEO.

Not surprisingly, these arguments were rejected.

Given inconsistencies in how Bedi described Cardiff’s position; England’s and Barker’s belief that Cardiff acted as the CEO; Cardiff’s history of dishonesty before the Court; and the undisputed facts that Cardiff helped to found VPL and wields final authority over many crucial business decisions, the Court concludes that the preponderance of the evidence supports the FTC’s argument that Cardiff owns or controls VPL, whether directly or indirectly, even if he is not technically VPL’s CEO.

The court finding Cardiff owns VPL means the company

belongs under receivership, with its assets frozen, pursuant to the 2018 Preliminary Injunction.

This includes VPL’s “current multi-million dollar accounts”.

Evidence abounds of Cardiff’s previous dishonest behavior, including

(1) Cardiff’s attempt to wire money to foreign jurisdictions in violation of the 2018 TRO;

(2) the Court’s three prior contempt findings against Cardiff for his scheme to conceal his ownership of the company True Pharmastrip and $1.56 million CAD, his and Eunjung Cardiff’s refusal to pay their mortgage despite maintaining a lavish lifestyle, and his concealment of his Irish passport; and

(3) the Receiver’s July 6, 2020 Report describing Cardiff’s falsified bank records in his application for a $20,000 per month apartment in New York City.

Cardiff’s past and current conduct does not give the Court much faith that he will not machinate to conceal, transfer, or use VPL funds in a manner that reduces value for potential restitution.

The preliminary injunction was granted and so ordered as of July 7th.

Looking forward in the case, next up we have the FTC’s third show cause contempt hearing.

In early July the Cardiffs filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file their opposition to the FTC’s show cause contempt motion.

Citing the “unique circumstances” of the case, the Cardiff’s motion was granted on July 3rd.

The show cause contempt hearing has consequently been pushed back to July 24th.

Pending any further delays, our next case update will be published on or around July 25th.

Add comment

By Ronald

Recent Posts

Recent Comments